Between Newt Gingrich's defense of Sarah Palin's theory, a poll showing a number of people still fear euthanasia by government fiat and an oft-quoted economist's assertion that the elderly already suffer under a rationing policy in Sweden, it seems unlikely the "death panel" debate will evaporate soon.

One thoughtful columnist offers a different point of view. The Providence Journal's Froma Harrop told readers today that death panels do indeed exist, and they have nothing to do with the government.

Harrop relays a brutal account of her husband's battle with liver cancer and denial of coverage by their insurance carrier. An in-network liver expert said her husband's one chance was within 50 miles, at Boston's Deaconess Hospital, home to a specialized chemotherapy program.

The insurance company refused to cover that option and directed them to a small, local hospital that was not equipped for his specific cancer.

"Don't waste your time," Harrop quotes a liver specialist saying.

She writes that they naively pursued their insurance company's appeals process, rather than just mortgaging their house -- their doctor's whispered advice -- and phone calls and snail mail responses trickled in with creative explanations of each denial.

She concludes the insurance company was running its own death panel and they were "running out the clock" on her husband's life. Had they received an outright "no" from the start, they would have gone to Deaconess at their own expense, she writes.

Later, after finally deciding to rush to Deaconess, she quotes the head of the chemo program: "HMOs don't care whether you live or die. They just want to save money."

People who have read the bills wending through both houses of Congress remind us, emphatically, that offering people a chance to, voluntarily, speak with their doctor about end-of-life decisions is not the same as convening death panels.

Still, people fear any government hand in health care will lead to rationing. Peter Morici, a chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission and University of Maryland professor, suggests in a column today Sweden provides an ominous example:

"In Sweden, for example, delays result in suffering and deaths that would not occur in the expensive, but more humane, U.S. system. No one is held accountable, the elderly are particularly vulnerable, and that is euthanasia, de facto if not de jure."

Sunday, on ABC's This Week, Gingrich, former speaker of the House, said, "Communal standards, historically, is a very dangerous concept."

And a poll out this week commissioned by Daily Kos (a liberal blog) but conducted by Research 2000 (a non-partisan organization) found 26 percent of Republicans still believe the health-care overhaul plan includes "death panels."

Another 31 percent of Republicans polled said they weren't sure. Among Democrats polled, 88 percent said there would be no death panels.

So perceptions of the death panel issue clearly depend on your partisan stripe and, most likely, where you get your news.